be any such thing as fundamental truths, these belong to the number. Of this number, the Orthodox have always been persuaded, is the doctrine of the true and proper Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who admit this doctrine, and build their whole system upon it; and those who totally reject it, can never worship or commune together. It will be easy, I think, to make it appear that they are of different religions; and that to consider it in any other light, is a perversion of reason as well as of scripture.

The Orthodox assuredly believe, that man is a guilty, depraved and ruined creature, by nature as well as by practice. They believe that there is no other way by which he can regain the favour and image of his Maker, than by the atoning blood, and sanctifying Spirit of the eternal Son of God. They are persuaded, moreover, that it is the union of Divinity and humanity in the adorable Person of the Saviour, that makes his atoning sacrifice infinitely meritorious, and that stamps infinite sufficiency, efficacy, and glory on his righteousness. And they believe, with equal confidence, that without an humble and cordial reception of this great Mediator, as

the Lord our righteousness, and the Lord our strength, as the foundation of our hope, and the life of our souls, there is no vital union to Him; no interest in his atonement; no salvation. But all this Unitarians reject as a vain delusion, and denounce as gross idolatry. In their view, man stands in no need of a Redeemer, and Jesus Christ is nothing more than a mere human teacher. Now I ask, can these two parties consider their points of difference as of a minor sort, or reconcileable? When the question is, whether the Saviour in whom I put my trust, is a Divine being, or only a man, like myself; whether He is a mere creature, or the uncreated God, the Maker and Governor of all worlds; whether He is to be honoured and worshipped as mỹ Almighty Deliverer from sin and death, or only respected as a mere human preacher of mercywhen these are the questions to be asked, can those who answer them not only DIFFERENTLY, but OPPOSITELY, be of the same religion, or worship in the same temple? Impossible! The objects of their worship are different; the grounds of their confidence are different; the whole current of their exercises, and of their language, in contemplating and in seeking

salvation, must be entirely different. They who adopt the erroneous side, substitute ANOTHER GOSPEL, nay, it is not too much to say, ANOTHER GOD, in place of the Gospel and the God of the Bible. As well might light and darkness be expected to agree. Either the Orthodox must be involved in the dreadful guilt of worshipping a creature instead of the Creator; or the Unitarians in the no less shocking guilt of denying the Lord that bought us, and habitually blaspheming that Name which is above every name. Can this difference be a matter of small moment? Is it easy, nay is it possible to "make too "much" of it-to "attach too much impor"tance" to it? I could just as soon believe that the points in controversy between the Christian and the Atheist are trivial matters, and that both might, with perfect comfort, worship in the same sanctuary, and commune at the same table!

Before any one, then, can reasonably find fault with the Orthodox for laying too much stress on the opinions in controversy between them and Unitarians, he must first assume as a conceded fact that the opinions of the Orthodox are false. For if they are admitted to be true,

G

(and surely the Orthodox believe them to be so) then all the important consequences which we contemplate must, demonstrably, flow from them. If the children of men BE lost and perishing sin ners;-if we essentially need pardon and sanctification ;—if the eternal Son of God became incarnate that he might be made an atoning sacrifice for our sins;-if there be NO OTHER WAY in which forgiveness and purity can be imparted to us, than by the obedience, the sufferings, and the Spirit of an Almighty Redeemer; -if the plan of salvation adopted by infinite Wisdom be a plan, not of WORKS, but of MERE GRACE and if we must receive it with humble gratitude, as a system of grace, or perish ;then, I ask, do we attach unwarrantable importance to these truths, when we represent the reception of them as essential to salvation, and consider those who reject them as unworthy of the Christian name? If they be true, all this follows of course. "Let none persuade you "then, my friends, that the doctrine of the "Trinity is a matter of curiosity and specu"lation only. OUR RELIGION IS FOUNDED UPON ❝IT. For what is Christianity but a manifesta❝tion of the three Divine Persons as engaged in

"the great work of man's redemption, begun, ❝continued, and to be ended by them, in their "several relations of Father, Son and Holy "Ghost; Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier; "three Persons in one God? If there be no Son "of God, WHere is our REDEMPTION? If there "be no Holy Spirit, WHERE IS OUR SANCTIFI "CATION? Without both, WHERE IS OUR SAL"VATION? And if these two Persons be any

thing less than Divine, why are we baptized "equally in the name of the Father, and of the

Son, and of the Holy Ghost? Let no man, therefore, deceive you. This is the true God and eternal life."*

Accordingly, let me entreat you, my Brethren, to appeal to the unerring Word of God, and see whether the true doctrine concerning the Person and work of Christ, is not there represented as that great fundamental matter, on which the whole fabrick of Christianity, and all our hopes for eternity must rest. The Saviour himself expressly declares, that all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Bishop HORNE's Discourses on the Trinity.